This is starting to get one of those threads that reallyshould have ended a _long_ time ago.

> > > > If it has legal value, then it's an additional restriction.> > > If it has legal value in showing the work is derivative thats not an> > additional restriction.> > If the work would not have been restricted without it and is restricted> with it and you can't remove it, it's an additional restriction. If not,> what would an additional restriction be?>

Read further on - it in itself is not a legal issue as such.

> > Its merely showing the intent of the author.> > The intent of the author has no bearing on whether or not a work is> derived.>

If you read the ending part of Alan's message, you will see wherethis fits into. Removing it, once again do not have any reallegal value while still within GPL 'usage boundaries'.

If the party that is accused of breaching GPL however did alsoremove the GPL_ONLY symbols, it does once again have no legalimplication, except maybe enforcing a case of 'look, his intentwas from day one to breach GPL'. It is however not bindinglegally, and its worth will depend on the country, legal systemand so on.

> > If> > someone creates a work and its found to be derivative and they didnt> > make it GPL compatible they get sued, thats also not an additional> > restriction its what the GPL says anyway.> > Show me where the GPL says you have to GPL derived works that you don't> distribute. That restriction is found nowhere in the GPL and if you> attempted to impose such a restriction, it would be an additional one.>

I do not see why point you want to make. If you do _NOT_ distributemodified versions of the kernel, or works based on it, wtf worry ?If you however do (hello, driver derived from kernel source/examples,etc), you are bound by GPL (section 2a) to also distribute it underGPL, and thus also the sources, which is exactly what manufacturesdoing binary only drivers do not do.

> > That is the whole point of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, it doesn't enforce> > anything and Linus was absolutely specific it should not do the> > enforcing. Its a hint and a support filter.> > If it doesn't enforce anything and isn't a license restriction, then it's> perfectly legal and kosher to remove it.>

Yes, didn't Alan just say it does not enforce anything?

What it does though do, what the whole idea behind it is, is ifparty A, say do a binary driver, and they changed EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLto EXPORT_SYMBOL, then the kernel devs will _not_ support party A,as Alan said with 'Its a hint and a support filter.'. Sure, youare free to remove it, but if you do, do not expect any support.

The company I work for is a supplier of PC components. We havethe same type of support 'safety system' build in - we do not havethe infrastructure to support the public masses, thus we sell atlow prices to vendors that have a much higher markup, and goodsupport. If then somebody come to us, that is not a dealer, ordo not have an Invoice, sorry sir, go to who you bought it from.Its basically the same thing if you think about it.

Can we now stop this, or could you continue this in private ifyou still choose not to understand?